Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Are we any closer to a mini tower?
- Thread starter Yixian
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why don't you people whining about a mid-priced tower just go buy a pre-owned G5 PowerMac? It'll still be fast as **** and you can get in under $1200 easy.
I think Apple is happy with the sales of the Mac Mini and the iMac right now. There's no need for Apple to make a xMac to sell machines. Is there people out there that want to buy them? Sure, but not enough for a unit to be introduced between the Mac Mini and iMac.
Hugh
Hugh
Will it run Snow Leopard? Will it run Handbrake? Will it run Plex? Why would any of us buy outdated technology that's overpriced, when we can easily build a quad core machine for about $1,000 that'll smoke the quad core Mac Pro? It would be super silly (TM) to buy a G5.
Yes, very quickly too.
Some of us like having the real deal instead of being cheap wannabes.
Would you prefer a Kia that looks like a Mercedes or a real Mercedes?
I think there is enough people, the problem is that mid range towers have profit small margins. While they would most likely sell more and gain more market share, they would also most likely make less profit.
No, it won't. Handbrake requires an Intel processor.
That's fine - for you. But it's not fine for the thousands of people who want one. Don't presume that what's good for you is good for anyone else.
Your Mercedes is slow like a turtle compared to my Kia.
Dee dee deeNo, it won't. Handbrake requires an Intel processor.
Notice how much more bloated the intel one is.
There are thousands of people that want Kias that look like Mercedes too. Thats the whole basis for the Kia Amanti's (Hackintrash) existence, wannabes.
My Mercedes has already lasted years longer than yours ever will, works more reliably, is many times cheaper to own and will still be working a decade after your Kia has been to the crusher and you're making payments on another one.
Attachments
Yeah, really bloated.
Wait 'til SL arrives. I'm not into looks, just performance. And how's your video card market? I have dozens available now, and dozens more in the future.
Yeah, try doing a processor upgrade on your dinosaur.
I haven't had a single crash in 10 months of using my quad core machine.
Ha, ha. That's pretty funny. My build was less than $1,000 and smokes all but the 8-core Mac Pro.
Nope, my machine is easy to renovate, unlike your closed box.
Why a Mini-Tower? A Mac Pro can sit on the floor, an iMac on the desk - ditto for Mac Mini. How would a mini-tower look good or be functional?
My gripe isn't where the machine sites. To me, it's what goes inside the machine. I just want a desktop machine that 1) isn't made of laptop components and 2) doesn't include a built in monitor, and 3) isn't complete overkill (for me) like a Mac Pro.
I just want something more power than the Mini, and I'm happy with my current mouse, keyboard, and monitor. The Mac Pro is just too expensive and is overkill. A simple Core 2 Duo/Quad with a decent dedicated graphics card will do nicely.
Only in windows. You're still just as "limited" if you run OSX.
Why would I want to? CPU upgrades are generally a bad value because of other system bottlenecks that new systems don't have. Thats why a dual 1.8GHz G5 will walk all over a G4 with a dual 1.8GHz CPU upgrade.
Only 10 months? My G5 has been running 24/7 since new (late 2005), only being reset for software updates.
Good luck with support if your low-end Hackintrash has a problem.
And by that time it will still be slower than the low-end Mac Pro.
Nope. There are far more video card options for hackintoshes than for real Macs, even more than the Mac Pro.
So, going from a 2.4 gHz quad core to a 3.6 gHz quad core is a bad value? That's some world you live in.
Yeah, my box is only 10 months old. Can't really run for longer than that, eh?
I have all the "support" I've needed. No problems at all.
Let's see, your Power Mac G5 four-core system scores a 3200 on Geekbench. The quad core Mac Pro checks in at 5400. My 3.2 gHz Quad Core scores a 6500. I'm sure even you can do the math. Enjoy that dinosaur of yours, buddy.
They may be dropping G5 support for OS X versions soon. So it's a little risky if you want to be supported with updates in the future.
Repeating myself, that is only in the windows environment. In OSX you're limited to the same GPUs as the MP.
First, there is no 2.4ghz OR 3.6ghz i7. Second, the low end 2.6ghz i7 costs only $300 while the top end 3.2ghz costs over $1,200 for a mere 600mhz per core difference, $0.38 per additional mhz, a very poor value.
So you've got a really outdated low-end hackintrash, why haven';t you upgraded?
Geekbench is a worthless "benchmark", even you should know that.
Didn't say gpu, said video card. Don't make stuff up. Here's a list with those that work - far more than any "real" Mac.
Dude, there you go again makin' sh!+ up. You and everyone else can see what's in my 3.2 gHz box - a Q6600. Nowhere was the i7 mentioned.
It's much more contemporary than your G5 box, is faster than the quad core Mac Pro, the iMacs, MacBooks, MacBook Pros and the Mac mini. Most importantly, it serves my purposes, unlike any of Apple's offerings. If your Dino G5 serves you, then that's great.
Yeah, right. I always knew those 8 core Mac Pros weren't all that fast.
Will it run Snow Leopard? Will it run Handbrake? Will it run Plex? Why would any of us buy outdated technology that's overpriced, when we can easily build a quad core machine for about $1,000 that'll smoke the quad core Mac Pro? It would be super silly (TM) to buy a G5.
So...... Go buy that then. All I'm saying is that if you're so desperate for an apple-branded expandable tower on the cheap, you have options. It's pretty stupid to keep whining about an imaginary hole in their lineup.
Yeah there would have low profit making a tower, not to mention the headache Apple will having to support every thing because people would want to exchange the video card ect,... It make Apple to be like MS Windows. Make sure you OS runs on a bunch of computer.
Hugh
This notion that if Apple supported more hardware, that the quality would drop, is a huge fallacy. Unless of course Apple really isn't that good.
Why?
Because Linux supports a HUGE number of different hardware specs. And it's rock solid, running many many important servers/machines. Linux supports far more hardware than OSX ever has and at this rate ever will. OSX could be opened up and quality maintained. Apple just doesn't want too because they like their shiny aluminum cases. Nothing else on the inside is superior. All of their parts are outsourced, and I'm sure plenty of stuff is done on the cheap to increase their massive margins. Building your own machine from quality parts is far cheaper, and you'll get a far superior machine. So many macheads just DON'T get this. They swear by the fact that their "Apple hardware" is superior but it's all the same stuff! It's really mind boggling. Then you throw in the superiority complex at the same time, and you get the laughable posts seen here.
I'd really love to be able to install OSX on my own hardware. Or just get a better desktop machine as has been stated over and over and over by so many people. I really don't understand why Apple thinks the mac mini, the imac and the mac pro constitute an acceptable computer line. Without the iPhone and iPod their current offerings would sink them, period.
Just for the record I use the iPhone, and also a macbook and mac mini. And of course I have a quad core PC running windows 7 with 8 gigs of ram, and a gtx 260. It cost me nothing compared to an imac even, but I can only run windows or linux with it. *sigh*
Wake up Apple...please?